ISCR Case No. 24-01313

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

______________ ______________ In the matter of: ) )

) ISCR Case No. 24-01313

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: John Hannink, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 06/03/2025

Curry, Marc E., Administrative Judge: Although the circumstances that led to Applicant’s incurrence of delinquent debt were largely out of his control, he provided no evidence of what steps, if any, that he has taken to ameliorate his troubled financial situation. I conclude Applicant has failed to mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. His application for a security clearance is denied. Statement of the Case On August 23, 2024, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency Consolidated Adjudications Services (DCSA CAS) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guidelines F, financial considerations, explaining why it was unable to find it clearly consistent with the national security to grant security clearance eligibility. The DCSA CAS took the action under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the National Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) effective for any adjudication made on or after June 8, 2017. On September 15, 2024, Applicant answered the SOR, admitting the allegations and requesting a decision based on the evidence on file rather than a hearing. On

November 14, 2024, Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM), setting forth the Government’s arguments against Applicant’s security clearance worthiness. The FORM contains seven attachments, identified as Item 1 through Item 7. Applicant received a copy of the FORM on December 4, 2024. He was given 30 days to file a response. He did not file a response, whereupon the case was assigned to me on February 24, 2025. After receiving the FORM, I admitted Items 1 through 7 into the record.

Applicant is a 36-year-old single man. A prior marriage ended in a divorce. Since 2017, he has worked for a federal government contractor as a facility manager. Applicant stated he was born into a cult. He claimed the cult leader required its members “to go get as [many] credit cards as [they] could and then charge them up to donate money to the cult,” and to purchase and deliver food and household goods to the other families who were cult members. (Item 3 at 2) In 2015, Applicant escaped the cult. With no formal training, he had to use credit cards to make ends meet. Also, he claimed he used credit cards to help other family members transition from the cult. Currently, Applicant has approximately $54,000 of delinquent consumer debt. He does not plan on satisfying or resolving these debts. Instead, he is going to wait until they no longer appear on his credit report. Moreover, there is no record evidence that he is attending financial counseling.

The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion the Executive Branch has in regulating access to information pertaining to national security, emphasizing that “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are required to be considered in evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overall adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 2(a), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of variables known as the “whole-person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, past and pr

esent, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision.

The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 1(d) requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based on the evidence contained in the record. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . ..” The applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable security decision. Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must consider the totality of an applicant’s conduct and all relevant circumstances in light of the nine adjudicative process factors in AG ¶ 2(d). They are as follows: (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence.

Guideline F: Financial Considerations The security concern under this Guideline states, “failure to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information.” (AG ¶ 18) Applicant’s outstanding tax delinquencies trigger the application of AG ¶ 19(a), “inability to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations.” The following mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially applicable: (a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;

(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, a death, divorce, or separation, clear victimization by

predatory lending practices, or identity theft), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances; (c) the individual has received or is receiving financial counseling for the problem from a legitimate and credible source, such as a non-profit credit counseling service, and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control; and (d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debt. Growing up in a cult and being instructed by the cult leader to open credit cards to purchase items for other cult members constitutes a circumstance beyond Applicant’s control. However, Applicant left the cult approximately ten years ago and has done nothing to satisfy or resolve his delinquent debt, nor did he present evidence that he is enrolled in counseling to learn how to manage his finances. Consequently, AG ¶ 20(b) only applies insofar as the circumstances were beyond his control, and none of the other mitigating conditions apply.

I considered the whole-person concept factors in my analysis of the disqualifying and mitigating conditions, discussed above, and they do not warrant a favorable conclusion.

Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.j: Against Applicant

_____________________ In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant or continue Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Marc E. Curry Administrative Judge